Thursday, July 31, 2014

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, Mr Yang Razali Kassim.

The
conflict in Syria has attracted many foreign fighters from across the
globe. They have gone to Syria with the belief that it is a Jihad
obligation. Many are also drawn to Syria through a strong belief that it
is a prelude to the fulfilment of a prophecy of the End of Time (Yaumul
Qiyamah).

Commentary

THE
ONGOING conflict in Syria which started as part of the Arab Spring
against the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has since turned into a war
that has drawn in many regional powers and international players. At
the same time, Muslims from many parts of the world have travelled to
the country to join the rebel forces.

For over three years since
the conflict started in 2011, both the Assad regime and its opponents
have committed war crimes that include mass-killings, kidnappings,
indiscriminate bombings, executions and murders.

Three-level conflict

Broadly,
the ongoing conflict in Syria runs on three levels. The first is a
sectarian one between Sunnis and the Shi’ite regime which is also a
struggle between Sunni Islam and Shi’ite Islam led by Iran. The second
level is the ideologically-motivated attack against the Assad regime.

The
rebels are those who join Al-Qaeda affiliated groups on the premise
that the Syrian war is part of the global jihad; and others who are
driven by end-times prophetic narrative. These individuals believe that
they have to be in Syria to be part of the final battle.

The
third is the humanitarian level i.e. the conflict is portrayed as a
humanitarian crisis as some travel to Syria to render humanitarian and
financial aid. Many are radicalised by what they see and who they come
into contact with in Syria.

Syria is undergoing a political
conflict that serves as the newest hotspot attracting scores of foreign
fighters. Its ability to mobilise and draw foreign fighters is
unprecedented; surpassing that of even the Soviet-Afghan war. These
fighters who claimed to perform the act of jihad against the perceived
infidel Assad regime are factionalised opposition groups comprising the
secular nationalist Free Syrian Army (FSA), rebel groups like Al-Qaeda
affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN or Al-Nusra Front) and Islamic State of
Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS or ISIL).

Political not religious conflict

However,
many believe that the ongoing conflict in Syria is not about religion
and the war which is taking place is not an act of jihad. Muslim
scholars have come forward to clarify that the political conflict in
Syria does not qualify as “jihad”.

For example, Tunisia’s
Mufti, Sheikh Othman Battikh, has described calls for jihad against the
government in Syria as a “huge mistake” that is not permitted under
Islam. Sheikh Battikh stressed that those who went to fight in Syria
under the banner of jihad were “fooled and have been brainwashed.”

Apart
from Muslim scholars, some Islamist groups have also agreed that the
Syrian conflict cannot be categorised as a religious war and called for
peace and reconciliation. Mohammed Sawan, leader of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Libya, said the battle in the Arab region (including
Syria) is not about Islam or identity at all. It is about fundamental
values of democracy, freedom and rights. It has nothing to do with a
clash between Islamists and non-Islamists.

The End-Time narratives

Many
fighters who travelled to Syria are swayed by the narrative of
performing armed Jihad in Syria. These individuals and many others were
influenced by the “doomsday narrative”; that the conflict in Syria is a
prelude to the anticipated Yaumul Qiyamah (end of time).

They
argue that the Syrian conflict is the start of the end-times. According
to them, it is the apocalyptic struggle between the forces of good
represented by the Mahdi (the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule
before the Day of Judgment and rid the world of evil) and evil as
represented, for example, by the Syrian Assad regime. Hence, they argue
that it is the religious duty of Muslims, and if they can do so, to go
and join the fight to defeat the Assad regime and help usher in the
final victory for Islam.

Such narratives are based on sayings of the Prophet (Hadith)
which are often misunderstood and taken out of context. Among the
narratives used is, for example, a hadith on carriers of the Black
Banners (the black banners are used by the current violent Islamist
groups as their official flag) narrated on authority of Ibn Majah, a
medieval scholar of hadith: “If you see the Black Banners coming from
Khurasan go to them immediately, even if you must crawl over ice,
because indeed amongst them is the Caliph, Al Mahdi…and no one can stop
that army until it reaches Jerusalem.”

Some scholars are also
sceptical of the accuracy of the interpretation of the prophecy in the
Hadith though few would express such reservations in public for fear of
being misinterpreted as doubters of the prophecies.

The role of ideology and Internet

Ideology
plays an important role in many conflicts such as in Syria as it
appears in a religious guise. These ideas are actively propagated
through the Internet and social media by radical preachers who used some
of the hadiths of the end-time prophecies. One example of such
preachers is the Philippines-based Musa Cerantonio who was arrested in
the Philippines. Musa, 29, who was born in Melbourne to an Italian
family, converted to Islam at the age of 17 and is now one of the most
popular online preachers supporting ISIS. He allegedly used the Internet
to publicly urge Muslims to join “jihad” in Iraq and Syria. In a
youtube video, Musa described the various Islamist groups such as ISIS,
JAN and others including Al-Qaeda and Taliban as warriors of Islam who
carry the black banners as described in the prophetic tradition.

Such
claims from radical preachers on the end time prophecies should be
treated with great care and wisdom. The Prophetic Traditions, just like
the Holy Quran, should be studied in a more rigorous, systematic and
scholarly manner. Unlike most any ordinary books, it cannot simply be
taken literally and without a full understanding of its context. For the
Prophetic Traditions, there is also a question of verifying its
authenticity as this usually involves a chain of transmitters as
compared to the Quran, which was sent directly from God through the
Archangel Gibril to Prophet Muhammad.

The audience of such
messages should also have the ability to discern certain truths from
untruths. For example, the endorsement of Islamist groups like ISIS as
warriors of Khurasan (in Central Asia) as claimed by preachers such as
Musa Cerantonio is highly questionable and refutable. This is due to the
indiscriminately violent nature of ISIS, which contradicts the expected
coming of Imam al-Mahdi, which is to bring peace and stability as
narrated in another Prophetic Tradition.

Muslims must be able to
distinguish political issues from religious ones and be fully aware of
politics cleverly couched in religious language. This ability to make a
clear distinction will enable them to think with a clear and logical
mind, instead of allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated by
religious rhetoric.

On the part of the scholars there is a
pressing need to counter such narratives with a rigorous in-depth study
of the Prophetic Traditions which have been quoted widely on the
Internet. This is to prevent the genuine messages of Islam from being
manipulated or misunderstood.

Mohamed
Bin Ali is Assistant Professor with the Studies in Inter-Religious
Relations in Plural Societies Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies. He is also a counsellor with the Religious
Rehabilitation Group (RRG).

This article appears in the July 25, 2014 issue
of Executive Intelligence Review. This is from last
week - I will send an up-dated report on the escalating danger of a war on
Russia within a few days. Mike Billington
RUSSIA
TARGETED

Malaysian Plane
DowningHeightens War Danger

July 22—While
it may take days or even weeks to reach a competent forensic determination of
the cause of the crash of the Malaysian commercial airliner MH17 over eastern
Ukraine July 17, the cries for a confrontation with Russia are growing louder,
led by President Obama and his top aides, including American UN Ambassador
Samantha Power. As far as Obama and the U.S. establishment media are concerned,
the byword is: “Don’t confuse me with facts—my mind is made up.” In this case,
the determination is that Russian President Vladimir Putin was either directly
or indirectly responsible for the incident, and Russia is to pay a heavy
price.

Washington’s
snap judgment was matched July 21 by British Prime Minister David Cameron,
writing in the London Times, who declared Putin guilty of shooting down
the airliner, and demanded that Europe break decisively with Russia.

While the war
cry from London, Washington, and the Netherlands, in particular, continues, the
United Nations Security Council on July 21 was able to agree on a resolution
mandating an international, independent investigation of the jet crash. Among
other points, the text demands that “the armed groups in control of the crash
site and the surrounding area refrain from any actions that may compromise the
integrity of the crash site and immediately provide safe, secure, full and
unfettered access to the site and surrounding area for the appropriate
investigating authorities.”

In fact, the
OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) monitors declared on
July 20 that they had been given full access to the main crash site. On July 21,
before the UN resolution, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced that he
had reached an agreement with the prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk
People’s Republic, whereby Malaysia would receive the remains of 282 people,
which had been recovered and refrigerated by the militias, and would be given
the two “black boxes” which the militias had taken custody of, in fear that they
would be tampered with, if handed over to the Kiev authorities.

An official
Pentagon statement—issued the same day as a phone call between U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov which appeared to
agree on an impartial investigation—identified a Russian-made Buk/SA-11 missile
as the weapon used in the downing, but offered no evidence as to who carried out
the attack.

In contrast,
the Russian Ministry of Defense on July 19 issued a statement, spelling out ten
crucial unanswered questions, directed at Ukrainian authorities, over whose
territory MH17 was flying at the time of the attack (see below).

On Sunday,
July 20, Secretary of State Kerry appeared on a number of TV programs to bolster
Obama’s own “blame Putin” rhetoric. Kerry’s appearance, reminiscent of Dr. Susan
Rice’s now infamous TV appearances days after the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi
attacks, claiming they were the result of spontaneous demonstrations against an
anti-Islam video, repeated the claims that the Russians had delivered SA-11
anti-aircraft batteries to rebels in eastern Ukraine and had trained them on the
use of the sophisticated weapons. News leaks also claimed that CIA agents in
Kiev had authenticated an alleged intercepted phone call between Ukrainian
rebels and Russian military personnel right after the plane crash, taking credit
for the incident.

‘A Doctor
Strangelove Situation’

Some sane
voices in the U.S. and around the world have warned that the escalating rhetoric
threatens to trigger a great powers war. Col. Patrick Lang (ret.), former head
of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s human intelligence division, posted a blunt
warning on his widely read website on July 19: “The Yellow Media are creating a
Doctor Strangelove situation. They do not seem to grasp the idea that the war
between Russia and the U.S.A. toward which they are groping will destroy both
countries altogether. Once more, a war between the U.S.A. and Russia will
destroy both countries and much of the rest of the world.”

The BRICS
nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) leaders have all called for
an “objective probe” of the Malaysian Airlines disaster in Ukraine that, if
carried out, would help to avoid the war that Lang is warning against. “I was
shocked,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping at a joint press conference with
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

“I hope
that a fair and objective probe will be carried out to establish the truth as
early as possible.”

In a separate
statement, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he hopes “the circumstances
of the disaster are established quickly.”

Brazilian
President Dilma Rousseff has also urged a speedy investigation into the terrible
tragedy. “First, it should be established what really happened. The Brazilian
government will give no assessments until the circumstances are clear,” she
said. Rousseff was echoed by South African President Jacob Zuma, who also called
for a thorough, transparent, and independent investigation to determine the
cause of the incident.

Greatly
adding to the danger, is that the Malaysian plane tragedy does not take place in
a vacuum. President Obama, just days before the crash, announced harsh new
sanctions against Russia—despite the fact that the European Union did not go
along with Washington and London’s demands. NATO has announced an expansion of
manuevers in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe on the Russian
borders.

What is
completely missing from the Washington and London rhetoric is any effort to
determine cui bono—who would benefit from such a brutal act of
terrorism. From that standpoint, Russia stands to lose the most as the result of
the tragedy.

Furthermore,
the downing of the MH17 came at the conclusion of the world-changing BRICS
Summit in Brazil, where the five nations agreed to establish a New Development
Bank and a fund to protect against currency warfare (see this week’s
Feature). These new institutions, while not formally replacing the IMF
and World Bank, offer a clear alternative to the brutal conditionalities and
debt blackmail of the “Washington consensus” system. They come at a time when
even the Bank for International Settlements has been warning about an imminent
debt blowout of the major trans-Atlantic banks as the result of their
out-of-control gambling activities. In the second quarter of the year,
derivatives contracts expanded by an annual rate of 19%, with total global
derivatives estimated at over $1.7 quadrillion.

Mervyn King,
the former head of the Bank of England, recently noted that the biggest
financial crash of the 20th Century took place in the Spring-Summer of 1914, and
led directly into the Guns of August start of World War I. The parallels between
then and now, exactly 100 years later, are stark. The major difference is that
the great powers of 1914 did not have overkill arsenals of thermonuclear
weapons, as the United States, Russia, and China have
today.

While countless gallons of digital ink have been spilled
about China’s growing military might and “salami slicing” tactics that are
changing the status-quo in the South China Sea, we rarely get to go behind the
scenes, to understand up close the tactics and strategies Beijing is employing.
However, thanks to a recent report in Reuters, we now know a little more about
China’s stepped up efforts to alter conditions in the water. It may just end up
that Beijing’s greatest weapon may not be its military—it might just be its
fishing boats.

The report details at length China’s multi-pronged strategy
to assert its maritime claims through fishing in various areas of the South
China Sea that are in dispute—asserting claims not by “small-stick diplomacy”
but now what we might call “fishing pole diplomacy.” Nothing says “sovereignty”
more than doing the normal things a nation does in its own territory, like
simple fishing. China’s strategy is in part genius, but also setting the stage
for possibly violent confrontations with its South China Sea neighbors in the
near term. This is of course on top of issuing maps that draw nine or ten-dash
lines around the area and claiming it outright, putting oil rigs off rival
claimants coastlines, as well as creating a world-class military with strong
anti-access/area-denial capabilities (A2/AD) to deter a much more powerful
adversary to stay out of the region in the event of a crisis.

According to the piece:

On China's southern Hainan Island, a fishing boat captain
shows a Reuters reporter around his aging vessel. He has one high-tech piece of
kit, however: a satellite navigation system that gives him a direct link to the
Chinese coastguard should he run into bad weather or a Philippine or Vietnamese
patrol ship when he's fishing in the disputed South China Sea.

By the end of last year, China's homegrown Beidou satellite
system had been installed on more than 50,000 Chinese fishing boats, according
to official media. On Hainan, China's gateway to the South China Sea, boat
captains have paid no more than 10 percent of the cost. The government has paid
the rest.

This is quite significant as Chinese fisherman can not only
fish disputed waters with clear government support, but if they get in trouble
have essentially a direct hotline to Beijing for help and are paying very
little of the cost for such technology. In fact, according to a companion piece
in Quartz, China has 695,555 fishing vessels, and while clearly not all would
be able to venture out into disputed waters it stands to reason more vessels
could be sailing into such territory in the near future.

The article goes on to note:

It's a sign of China's growing financial support for its
fishermen as they head deeper into Southeast Asian waters in search of new
fishing grounds as stocks thin out closer to home.

Hainan authorities encourage fishermen to sail to disputed
areas, the captain and several other fishermen told Reuters during interviews
in the sleepy port of Tanmen. Government fuel subsidies make the trips
possible, they added.

That has put Chinese fishing boats - from privately owned
craft to commercial trawlers belonging to publicly listed companies - on the
frontlines of one of Asia's flashpoints.

The mention of declining fishing stocks is also of interest.
While issues of nationalism, sea lines of communication carrying trillions of
dollars worth of goods, as well as oil and natural gas are commonly mentioned
in creating tensions, many times valuable fishing stocks are simply forgotten
but are clearly driving Chinese as well as other nations territorial claims.
Indeed, the piece makes mention of a study by China’s State Oceanic
Administration that explained fishing stocks around the Chinese coast were in
decline.

None of this should be any shock to those who have been
keeping up with the latest developments in Asia’s Cauldron. For the last
several years, China has been using various non-naval and non-military assets
to push its claims in disputed regions. What make the above report of interest
is the level of outright support China is giving its fishing industry to press
its claims on behalf of the government, and how far they could press such
claims:

Several fishermen from separate boats said the Hainan
authorities encouraged fishing as far away as the Spratlys, roughly 1,100 km
(670 miles) to the south.

The boat captain said he would head there as soon as his
vessel underwent routine repairs.

"I've been there many times," said the captain,
who like the other fishermen declined to be identified because he was worried
about repercussions for discussing sensitive maritime issues with a foreign
journalist.

Another fisherman, relaxing in a hammock on a boat loaded
with giant clamshells from the Spratlys, said captains received fuel subsidies
for each journey. For a 500 horsepower engine, a captain could get
2,000-3,000yuan ($320-$480) a day, he said.

"The government tells us where to go and they pay fuel
subsidies based on the engine size," said the fisherman.

Added one weather-beaten captain: "The authorities
support fishing in the South China Sea to protect China's sovereignty."

Could China’s “fishing pole” diplomacy win the day in the
South China Sea? We might just find out.

Harvard Is New Summer Hot Spot as Chinese Students Crowd Boston

Students from China touring Harvard University during a three-week summer trip to scout elite U.S. colleges.

Chinese students have a new favorite summer destination: Harvard University.
So many students and their families are visiting Boston-area
schools such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts
University that Hainan Airlines Co.
started direct flights to Boston from Beijing in June and increased the
number from four to seven a week in July and August. Tufts gets so many
requests from large organized groups that it runs separate tours for
them.
“My parents enjoy listening to my description of schools,
such as the campus views, the school culture and the feeling of visiting
them,” said Yuhan Wu, 16, from Beijing, who is on a three-week college
scouting trip that included Harvard.
Yihan Gao, a 17-year-old high school senior from Beijing, whispered in front of Widener Library in Harvard Yard about how she borrowed her friend’s student card on a previous visit to sneak into the library and explore.
The surge in interest underscores both the prestige of
obtaining a degree from Boston-area colleges and the burgeoning
affluence of China’s middle class. The number of Chinese students in the
metropolitan area almost tripled to 10,913 last year from 3,800 in
2009. That’s faster than growth nationally, which more than doubled,
according to the Institute of International Education in New York.
Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Northeastern University
and Boston University in Boston, each ranked in the top 25 schools
hosting international students in the 2012-2013 academic year, according
to the institute. Chinese make up the largest segment of foreign
students at 27 percent.

Starting Early

“There’s a healthy influx and desire for them to come here to
America for school,” Evan Saunders, chief executive officer of Attract
China, a tourism marketing firm, said in a telephone interview. “Chinese
families will even visit places like Harvard when their children are
five or six. No pressure, right? They’ll come for Harvard but stay for
Tufts or BU.”
Tufts has seen an increase in both Chinese visitors and
applications to attend the university in the Boston suburb of Medford,
said Jen Simons, associate director of admissions. Prospective students
often come during the summer as part of organized groups of 20 or 30.
The request for special groups already has “surpassed all of the requests we had last summer,” Simons said.
Wu and Gao came to Boston through Beijing-based Elite Scholars China,
which organizes tours and provides college counseling for students
interested in studying in the U.S. Its $11,000 three-week summer program
includes flights, room, board, SAT and writing classes at Wellesley
College and tours of schools around Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and
New York, co-founder Tomer Rothschild said in a phone interview.

Harvard Yard

On an overcast Sunday, students from Elite Scholars visited
Harvard Yard, soaking in their surroundings around the statue honoring
John Harvard, a sea of umbrellas clouding it from view.
While Harvard has always been popular among China’s elite, the 2000 publication of “Harvard Girl,”
which chronicles how a Chinese family raised their daughter to gain
acceptance into the university, has made the school popular among the
growing middle class, said Jamie Fleishman, an Elite Scholars counselor.
Students snapped pictures of everything in sight, including a
dusty basement room with little more than an old wooden table, a few
chairs and a whiteboard.
Brown University is Gao’s top choice among U.S. colleges. She
attended a summer program at the Providence, Rhode Island, Ivy League
school before joining the Elite Scholars group.
Several of the students went to academic camps at elite U.S. colleges or high schools, Fleishman said.

Resume Entry

“It’s a bullet point to add to your resume,” said Zhiquan
Zeng, another 17-year-old rising senior from Beijing. She didn’t attend
an additional program.
Since Elite Scholars’ inception in 2010, the number of
Chinese participating in the annual tour has tripled to almost 30
students.
The increased summer visits and enrollment is a function of
the growth of China’s economy, especially in the past five years, said
Allan Goodman, president of the Institute of International Education.
Education is so important to China’s middle class and families save a
lot of money for it, he said.
“Made in USA is a very important brand,” Goodman said. “It
represents educational quality, opportunity, and an open-and merit-based
admissions process that differs from China’s.”
Mingyao Li, a 17-year-old Elite Scholars student, said the freedom and access at American schools appeals most to him.
“In Chinese universities, the professors will teach you
knowledge in preparation for the final exams whereas in the U.S.,
professors guide and help you find your own interests,” Li said.

Full Fare

China’s economy expanded 7.5 percent
in the year through the second quarter and the pace of growth has
stayed above 6 percent since 2009. In comparison, the U.S. economy grew
1.5 percent in the year through March.
The attraction works both ways. Beyond the diversity that
foreign students bring to a campus, many, if not most, pay full fare and
don’t rely on direct financial aid or discounts from the school toward
the cost to attend. Undergraduate tuition, fees, room and board
at Harvard for the 2014-2015 year is $58,607, according to its website.
At Northeastern, it’s $57,490. Neither include costs for books, travel
and personal expenses.
“Students coming from China are fairly well-heeled,” said
Joel Chusid, an executive director at Hainan Airlines. “The kids who
come to school here have the financial wherewithal.”

‘Cultural Bridge’

The airline’s decision to start a direct Boston route is more
significant than if an American carrier such as Delta had done so,
IIE’s Goodman said.
“This really makes a statement in China about the cultural bridge it’s building to Boston,” Goodman said.
When Chinese families go through the decision-making process
and compare universities, many parents say they prefer a school if it’s a
direct flight from Beijing, Rothschild said.
“Nowadays, people have become more rational and do not only
regard the rankings of schools as the only resource,” Li, one of Elite
Scholar students, said. “They have understood that really going to see a
school will partly guide their choice.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Kelly Blessing in Boston at kblessing1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Lisa Wolfson at lwolfson@bloomberg.net Chris Staiti

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, Mr Yang Razali Kassim.

No. 153/2014 dated 31 July 2014

Netanyahu’s Dilemma: From the War in Gaza to the War at HomeBy James M. Dorsey

Synopsis

Prime
Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is likely to face significant political
problems at home and a far less empathetic diplomatic environment abroad
once the guns fall silent in Gaza. Calls in Israel for an inquiry into
the government’s handling of the Gaza crisis and what is being described
as an intelligence failure regarding tunnels built by Hamas are
mounting. In addition, Israel’s relations with its closest allies, the
United States and the European Union, have been bruised even if they
continue to uphold the Jewish state’s right to defend itself.

Commentary

ISRAEL’S
RATIONALE for its assault on Gaza has shifted during the last three
weeks of almost uninterrupted hammering of the Hamas-controlled Gaza
Strip, one of the world’s most densely populated territories. The war
launched first to counter Palestinian rockets fired in response to an
Israeli crackdown on Hamas operatives on the West Bank following the
kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers has since focused on underground
tunnels that potentially allow Islamist militia fighters to penetrate
Israel, and in recent days on critical infrastructure such as Gaza’s
power supply.

While Israel may be succeeding in severely damaging
the military infrastructure of Hamas and other Islamist groups in Gaza,
it realizes that international discomfort with its heavy-handed
approach that has cost the lives of some 1,300 mostly Palestinian
civilians and wreaked devastating material damage that will cost
billions to rebuild, means that it does not have a lot of time to
militarily achieve its objectives. It also is dawning on Israel that the
diplomatic and political price it may have to pay is rising by the day.
The war in Gaza will no doubt strengthen calls for a boycott of and
sanctions against Israel and could accelerate EU moves to ban dealings
with Israeli entities based in occupied territory.

Intelligence Failure

Increasingly,
proponents of Israel’s assault on Gaza, who constitute a majority of
the Israeli population, question whether Israel could have countered
Hamas’ increasing military prowess in ways that would have been less
costly. Military analysts, after four wars in the last eight years
against non-state actors, the Shiite Islamist militia Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas, are calling for a review of Israeli military strategy
and reorganization of the armed forces.

Revelations that the
government long knew about Hamas’ tunnelling operation but did not
consider it a serious enough threat to counter, have sparked demands for
an investigation of what the Israeli media and some analysts are
describing as an intelligence failure. At the core of the alleged
failure is whether the government and the military ignored Hamas’
tunnelling because it had in recent years downgraded the security threat
posed by Palestinians and elevated Iran’s nuclear program to the most
existential threat the Jewish state was facing. As a result, Israel
focused its political, diplomatic, intelligence and military energies on
Iran rather than Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.

The
revelations also raise questions on the government’s real motive in
first cracking down on Hamas on the West Bank and then launching its
attack on Gaza. Critics of Israel charge that the government’s real goal
was to prevent the emergence of an effective Palestinian national unity
government that would group all factions, and that had tacit support
from Israel’s allies, because that would have made it more difficult for
Israel to sabotage peace negotiations while maintaining a façade of
seeking to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hamas strengthened

An
indication of the political fallout that Netanyahu can expect once the
fighting in Gaza is brought to a halt, is evident in Hamas’ ability to
reject ceasefires despite the punishing Israeli assaults that do not
involve a lifting of the seven-year old Israeli-Egyptian blockade of
Gaza. Rather than weakening Hamas, Israel’s attacks appear to have
strengthened it politically to the degree that it feels it can impose
conditions of its own in dealings with Israel rather than simply respond
to Israel’s requirements.

Israeli defence and intelligence
sources say the threat posed by the tunnels only became evident when
Palestinians taken prisoner in the early stages of the Gaza operation
disclosed plans for Hamas fighters to infiltrate Israel in a bid to
carry out a massive attack during this coming fall’s season of Jewish
high holidays. Until then Israel had paid limited attention to the
tunnels and discarded various plans involving water ditches, drones,
sensors and radars that could have either neutralized the threat or
alerted Israel to them in a timely fashion.

The damage to
Israel’s reputation and relations with its allies is prompting Israeli
leaders to consider whether it should quickly end the fighting in Gaza
despite Netanyahu’s warning that Israelis should brace themselves for a
long campaign. Those considerations are being complicated by Hamas,
which is unwilling to let Israel that easily off the hook and needs to
show more than resilience to Palestinians who have paid dearly in the
group’s confrontation with Israel. A lifting of the Gaza blockade would
fit the bill.

Political accounting and military review

Hamas’
demand also makes it more difficult for Israel to claim that it has
inflicted debilitating damage on the group and that it may not survive
politically because Gazans will hold it to account. It also puts to rest
Israeli claims that Hamas is desperate for a ceasefire. Hamas has
moreover demonstrated that its command and control remains intact.

The
Israeli drive to continue the assault on Gaza is fuelled by the fact
that the resolution of its two earlier conflagrations with the group
ultimately failed to produce results. Israel agreed in 2009 to an
unconditional ceasefire in the hope that it had sufficiently weakened
the group and created enough of a deterrence. Three years later it hoped
that a vague, unsigned agreement mediated by Egypt would do the job.
Israel’s problem is that continuing the assault would likely force it to
expand its ground operations at considerable military, political and
diplomatic risk.

With military analysts noting that various
incidents in which rockets and mortars have killed Israeli soldiers,
questions are being raised about the military’s ability to protect
Israeli civilians despite the effectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome
anti-missile defence shield. The questions fuel demands for a post-war
political accounting and a military review.

“Despite many
achievements that the army brass can point to, the current war in Gaza
reveals once again the necessity of a comprehensive reorganization of
the military. The training of forces, the equipment in use, combat
doctrine, and operational plans — all will need to be thoroughly
investigated when the hostilities are over,” said Amos Harel, the
military correspondent of Ha’aretz newspaper.

James
M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore,
co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture of the University of
Würzburg and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East
Soccer, and a forthcoming book with the same title.

On July 28, 1914, exactly one month after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of
Austria and his wife were shot dead, Austria-Hungary declared war on
Serbia. The stage was set for World War I, an inevitable result of
decades of political maneuvering, militarization, alliances and planning
for a conflict that would shatter the great European epoch, laying
waste to empires and ascendant nations.

At the heart of World War I was the rise of Germany and the question of
its place in the European balance of power. Prussian statesman Otto Von
Bismarck had painstakingly crafted a modern, unified German nation
through fire and blood, ensuring its survival through shrewd realpolitik
diplomacy. The new unified Germany remained wary of potential threats
from east and west, a concern reciprocated by nearby states, which
harbored deep-seated concerns and fears over Germany's rise that even
Bismarck could not allay. With the coronation of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a
man known to be possessed of unbridled ambition, the German question
increasingly demanded an answer.

With the possibility of a pan-European conflict growing, the Great
Powers set about drawing up strategic war plans. Each nation made its
plans based on its unique geopolitical position, but the grand designs
were also deeply affected by a host of secondary considerations.
Constrained by a historic legacy of conquests, alliances and rivalries,
and shaped by emotional and political ideology, the war plans of the
Great Powers were a clash between seemingly sound strategy and each
nation's unique and subjective interests.

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, Mr Yang Razali Kassim.

While
China’s overseas agricultural expansion will be led by state-owned
companies with strong support from the government, China is more likely
to adopt a market oriented strategy to safeguard the country’s food
security.

Commentary

IN
A paradigm shift in China’s food security strategy, China has been
rapidly expanding its agricultural presence overseas. And not
surprisingly, the country’s global hunt for food is being led by
state-owned agricultural companies with strong government support. A few
months ago, COFCO-China’s biggest state-owned agricultural company made
a back to back purchase of controlling stakes in two global
agricultural traders-Nidera NV and agribusiness division of Noble Group.
In June 2014, China Investment Corp-the country’s $650 billion
sovereign wealth fund announced that it will invest more in agriculture
around the world and across the entire value chain. In addition, China
also intends to set up an international agricultural trade fund and an
overseas agricultural development fund to facilitate China’s agriculture
Going Global efforts.

Apart from major merger and
acquisition, China has been acquiring land and other agricultural
resources overseas. According to China’s Ministry of Agriculture, by the
end of 2013, China has 23 Nongken groups (state-owned agricultural
company) setting up 113 foreign subsidiaries or projects in 42
countries, producing 10 million tonnes of grain annually. While the
above tends to suggest China is following a neo-mercantilist approach in
its global hunt for food as that for oil, a closer analysis of China’s
overseas agricultural activities and global agricultural strategy
indicates that China is more likely to adopt a market oriented strategy
in its global hunt for food.

The private actors should not be overlooked

Unlike
the energy sector which is dominated by state-owned companies, China’s
agricultural sector provide employment for over 200 million farmers and
there are millions of food related private companies along the whole
supply chain. Driven by employment opportunities and profit, numerous
Chinese farmers and private agribusiness voluntarily went abroad to
undertake agricultural activities. Although national data is not
available, data at the provincial level suggest that private companies
and farmers are playing a very important role in China’s overseas
agricultural expansion. For example, there are over 500,000
entrepreneurs from Zhejiang undertaking business in agricultural sectors
in over 40 countries or regions. Also, among the 110 companies from
Heilongjiang which undertake agricultural activities in Russia, 58 are
joint-equity cooperative enterprises, 40 are private companies and only
12 are state-owned enterprises.

Despite the fact that China
plans to consolidate its fragmented food industry and create its own
global food players which can lead China’s agriculture Going Global
efforts that are capable of competing with global agribusiness giant
such as Cargill, the country also intends to let the private sector play
a bigger role. A report published by Ministry of Agriculture suggested
that in future private capital should play the main role in funding the
country’s overseas agricultural expansion and investment should target
less on direct acquisition of land resources; instead, contract farming
should be promoted.

In recent years, some international media
accused China of grabbing land overseas and producing food for domestic
consumption; however, in fact China’s agricultural produce from its
investment in foreign soils, particularly in Africa, are primarily sold
at the local market. On the surface, this is due to three reasons:
sufficient domestic supply, customs control and high cost. However,
fundamentally, this is a reflection of the grand vision of China’s
overseas agricultural investment.

A market oriented vision

Although
there is no official document clarifying the real intention of China’s
global agricultural expansion, remarks of high ranking government
officials and China’s recent actions could serve as useful references.
Chen Xiwen, the deputy head of China’s central agricultural working
group revealed China’s intension during a press conference in 2012. He
said agricultural produces from the country’s overseas investment need
not be transported back to China. As long as China’s overseas
agricultural operations could help harness the potential of global food
production, the increase in global food supply could be the bulwark
against China’s food insecurity.

Furthermore, during a meeting
with Heilongjiang Nongken groups in July 2014, Wang Guangkun, Director
of the National Agricultural Comprehensive Development Office said
agriculture Going Global is a national strategy with political
significance and the purpose is to enhance the supply capacity of the
international food trade and reduce the unnecessary political risk faced
by China in the international market. Wang told the Nongken groups to
abandon the old concept of “farming overseas and shipping grain back to
China”; instead, he urged Nongken groups to sell agricultural produce in
the local market according to local conditions and strive to enhance
the market power of China in international grain trade.

Besides,
China’s recent attempt to reform COFCO also shows that it intends to
become a better market player. The purpose of reform-exploring
mixed-ownership and board-led human resources management is to weaken
the state background and send a message to the international community
that COFCOs overseas expansion is merely corporate action.

China’s
intention to follow a market oriented approach is also evident in its
strong support for agricultural trade liberalization. At the global
level, for instance, in the December 2013 Bali WTO meeting, when India’s
strong position on food subsidy nearly led to the collapse of the Doha
Round, China told India that China backed a successful WTO meeting,
though China appreciated India's strong position on food security. At
the regional level and bilateral level, agriculture is included during
China’s negotiation of FTAs with other countries, unlike many other FTAs
which normally excluded agriculture. For instance, in the case of
China-ASEAN FTA, agriculture was negotiated upfront and was the key
component of its Early Harvest Program.

Positive stance in global food governance

Fully
aware that China’s food security cannot be achieved without a stable
and favorable external environment, China has put in a lot of efforts to
strengthen global food governance. Apart from donating food to
countries that suffered from hunger and famine, China is providing
agricultural technological and financial assistance to developing
countries around the world to augment their food supplies.

In
addition, China shows more willingness to cooperate with other countries
particularly the United States on food security cooperation, China is
also very active in participating in global food governance via
increasing support to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and
World Food Programme.

As China’s food demand and supply gap
widens, the country’s further integration into global food market is
inevitable. Even though its agriculture Going Global push will
still be led by the state-owned grain companies, China is more likely to
pursue a market oriented approach-safeguarding the country’s food
supply and minimizing uncertainty of the global food market through
deepening global food trade and strengthening its market power.

Zhang
Hongzhou is an Associate Research Fellow with the China Programme at
the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang
Technological University.

China’s
advanced cruise and ballistic missiles pose a significant threat in
future conflict with the United States, the chief of naval operations
(CNO) warned last week.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the CNO, also said during a security
conference Friday that China is building a second aircraft carrier that
could be deployed in the not too distant future.

However, China’s current single carrier force is still under
development and the Chinese are incapable of conducting aircraft strike
operations from the refurbished Soviet-era carrier now called the
Liaoning, Greenert said following a recent visit to China, where he
toured the carrier.

Asked what Chinese weapons systems he is most concerned about if
the United States went to war with China, Greenert noted Beijing’s
growing arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles.

“They have an extraordinary selection of cruise missiles, and a
ballistic missile force that they developed,” Greenert told the Aspen
Security Forum.

If the conflict were close to China, the missile forces would pose the most serious threat, he said.

“If it’s in their backyard, I’m a little worried about their
ballistic missile [force] because of its reach,” Greenert said.

China has developed several types of advanced missile systems,
including a unique DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile that is intended
to strike U.S. aircraft carriers hundreds of miles from China’s coast.

The DF-21D has been described as a “carrier killer” for which the
U.S. Navy has few defenses. Greenert has said earlier that U.S. defenses
against the DF-21D would involve breaking the weapons’ “kill chain—the
network of sensors and communications links used to guide the missile to
its target.

The Pentagon stated in its latest annual report to Congress that
the DF-21D “gives the [People’s Liberation Army] the capability to
attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific
Ocean.

The missile has a range of more than 930 miles and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.

Another major threat in a future conflict is China’s new guided
missile destroyer, the Type 052D that the Pentagon says has deployed the
PLA’s first multipurpose vertical launch system that is believed
“capable of launching [anti-ship cruise missiles], land-attack cruise
missiles (LACMs), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and anti-submarine
missiles.” More than a dozen Type 052 destroyers are planned.

China’s H-6 bomber also has been upgraded to carry six land-attack cruise missiles with precision guidance capabilities.

“The development of China’s conventionally armed missiles has been
rapid, even in the context of overall Chinese military modernization,”
the Pentagon report said, noting that as recently as 10 years ago China
could not strike targets far from coasts.

“Today, however, China has more than 1,000 conventionally armed
ballistic missiles,” the report said. “U.S. bases on Okinawa are in
range of a growing number of Chinese [medium-range ballistic missiles],
and Guam could potentially be reached by air-launched cruise missiles.”

Chinese missiles also have grown more accurate and “are now better
suited to strike regional air bases, logistics facilities, and other
ground-based infrastructure, which Chinese military analysts have
concluded are vulnerabilities in modern warfare,” the report said.

The combination of ballistic, ground- and air-launched land attack
cruise missiles, and other forces threaten targets throughout the
region, the report said.

China’s first threatening cruise missiles were purchased from
Russia in the 1990s aboard Sovremenny-class guided missile warships that
are equipped with high-speed SSN-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles.

The National Air and Space Intelligence Center lists 14 types of
Chinese short-range ballistic missiles, five types of medium- and
intermediate-range ballistic missiles and two types of land-attack
cruise missiles.

Earlier this month, Greenert met in China with PLA Navy chief Adm.
Wu Shengli, and the two admirals sought to improve cooperation and
coordination.

Greenert said that Wu asked that Chinese naval experts be
permitted to visit U.S. aircraft carriers as part of China’s carrier
development program, but the request was rejected.

“They want to learn a lot more about our carriers by coming aboard
our carriers with experts, and we said ‘well we’re not ready for
that,’” Greenert said.

U.S. law passed in 1999 currently prohibits the Pentagon from
sharing details of U.S. power projection capabilities with China during
military exchanges. The law was passed to prevent the Chinese from
exploiting U.S.-China military exchanges to bolster their large-scale
military build up.

“They will build another carrier, probably relatively soon,” he
said. “It’ll look just like this one, they said. Ski ramp. About the
same tonnage, 65,000, 70,000 tons.”

While U.S. carrier operations can include the launch and recovery
of 100 aircraft routinely, China currently is limited to launching and
landing 10 jets at a time, and test pilots are involved in takeoffs and
landings.

“But they are moving at a pace that is extraordinary,” Greenert said of the carrier development.

Currently, the Chinese have operated the carrier in the South
China Sea, but without aircraft, and in the Yellow sea with
carrier-based jets.

Greenert said he is not overly concerned by the Chinese carrier
development because the PLA needs more work before the warship can
conduct military operations.

Greenert defended allowing the Chinese navy to take part in the
recent international military exercises known as Rim of the Pacific. He
noted that the Russians had taken part in RIMPAC in the past and there
were few protests.

Some in Congress opposed the Chinese navy involvement in RIMPAC
because it appeared the United States was rewarding China by allowing
Beijing’s participation at a time when China is engaged in bullying most
of its maritime neighbors in Asia.

Asked about China’s use of advanced weapons that are designed to
allow a weaker power to defeat a stronger foe, Greenert defended the
Navy’s development of high tech arms. He highlighted several new Navy
weapons programs, including a laser weapon that can shoot down drones

“Number one, we’re looking at lasers,” Greenert said. “And as we
speak we have a laser gun in the Arabian Gulf on a ship that we are
testing. It’s been demonstrated. It’s shooting down a drone and, if you
will, ‘overheating’ a fast craft at this level of power.”

Other advanced systems include unmanned aerial vehicles that can
be launched from carriers, and autonomous underwater vehicles that can
conduct searches and pass the information to surface vessels.

“We’re into cyber in many ways beyond the classification that we’re talking here,” he said.

“So I too agree just more kinetic [weapons], more missiles that’s
not the way ahead,” Greenert said. “The way is the electro magnetic
spectrum to get in to spoof, to jam, to fry, if you will, microwave, and
that’s the way of the future for us as well.”

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/July31/312.html#GecSXIEwjXuO2pVT.99

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of a new insecticide, DuPont’s cyantraniliprole (CTP), despite concerns about it getting into the nation’s food supply and the fact that it’s highly toxic to hundreds — perhaps even thousands — of endangered species.

To help protect the public and wildlife from the effects of CTP, three groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and Defenders of Wildlife – are suing the EPA in federal court.

According to the Center for Food Safety, the complaint filed by the groups stated that the insecticide “kills by causing unregulated activation of ryanodine receptors, which results in unregulated muscle contraction, paralysis, and death.”

The EPA’s own data showed CTP to be toxic, the Center for Food Safety said.

“Based on data showing the concentrations or amounts of CTP that cause direct effects, EPA classified the chemical as ‘slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish; slightly toxic to estuarine/marine fish; slightly to very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates; moderately to highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates, highly toxic to benthic invertebrates; highly to very highly toxic to terrestrial insects’ from acute exposures.”

Concerns About Cyantraniliprole

Here are a few of the other significant concerns:

1. CTP Will Get Into Our Food Supply.

Will this harmful pesticide get into our food supply? Yes. According to the Federal Register, CTP residue will be allowed on foods such as:

Almonds Berries Citrus Leafy Vegetables Onions

2. CTP Will Be Hard To Avoid.

You can change your eating habits, but it will be difficult to avoid CTP. After all, the EPA expects that its “use will be widespread.” So it will be used not only for agricultural purposes, but also for use on lawns, ornamental plants, fly baits, and even golf courses.

Sound familiar? It should.

Roundup was also deemed safe; however, we now know just how harmful it is. Likewise, CTP is a chemical that we should stop using now before the damage is done.

3. CTP Will Destroy The Bee Population.

The EPA is aware that CTP is dangerous to bees — but still approved it. Considering that the bee population is dwindling here in the U.S., perhaps the EPA should take a cue from Europe and stop using any pesticides that harm bees. And let’s be honest: We need them to grow food! Beyond Pesticides says that in the near future, there may not be enough bees to pollinate crops due to the harmful effects of pesticides:

Beekeepers nationwide have experienced honey bee losses of over 40 percent over the 2012/2013 winter period —2013/2014 winter losses are likely to be released soon— with some beekeepers reporting losses of over 70 percent, far exceeding the normal rate of 10 to 15 percent. Some have even been driven out of business. Current estimates of the number of surviving hives in the U.S. show that these colonies may not be able to meet the future pollination demands of agricultural crops.

4. CTP Will Seep Into Our Water Supply.

The EPA will regulate the amount of CTP that is allowed on crops, but it hasn’t taken any steps to limit the amount of CTP that may get into the water supply.

“EPA’s unlawful and irresponsible approval ignored its own scientists’ warnings that strong protective measures are needed because this pesticide can drift into wildlife habitat,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. “The agency also failed to include measures to protect water quality from pesticide run-off despite the urging of local water management authorities.”

How To Protect Yourself And Your Family From Pesticides

For now, CTP is used in the United States, Canada, China and India. While it’s hard to avoid, there are some steps that you can take to protect yourself and your family from CTP and other harmful pesticides.

34 International EIR August 1, 2014Guest CommentaryWho Stands To Gain?by Chandra MuzaffarDr. Muzaffar is the President of the InternationalMovement for a Just World(JUST).MALAYSIA, July 26—The Russianmilitary has released military monitoringdata which challenges allegationscirculating in the media pertaining tothe MH 17 crash in the Donetsk Regionof Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.Questions have been raised about Kievmilitary jets tracking MH 17, Ukrainianair traffic controllers, and the deploymentof Buk missile systems. Kievshould also release military data on thecircumstances leading to the crash. Soshould the Pentagon, which reportedly has relevant intelligenceand satellite data.Since military data is hardcore information, Kievand Washington should be persuaded to be transparentand accountable. The UN Secretary-General can play arole in this since there is a specialized agency within theUN, the ICAO, dedicated to international civil aviation.Military data from Moscow, Kiev, and Washingtonshould be scrutinized by the independent internationalpanel that is supposed to probe the MH 17 catastrophe.Such data carries much more weight than videospurportedly revealing the role of the pro-Russian rebelsand the Russian government in the crash. One suchvideo showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraineto Russia is a fabrication. The billboard in the backgroundestablishes that it was shot in a town—Krasnoarmeisk—that has been under the control of the Ukrainianmilitary since May 11. Similarly, a YouTube videopurporting to show a Russian general and Ukrainianrebels discussing their role in mistakenly downing a civilianaircraft was, from various tell-tale signs, producedbefore the event.The public should be wary of fabricated “evidence”of this sort, after what we have witnessed in the last somany years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies andmassive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegationthat Iraq had weapons of mass destruction(WMD), which led eventually to the invasion of thatcountry in 2003, and the deaths of more than a millionpeople? Iraq continues to bleed to this day.What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964,which again was a fabrication that paved the way forwanton U.S. aggression against Vietnamthat resulted in the death of morethan 3 million Vietnamese?The “babies in incubators” incidentin Kuwait in 1990 was yet anothermanufactured lie that aroused the angerof the people and served to justify theU.S. assault on Iraq.Just last year we saw how an attemptwas made by some parties to pinthe blame for a sarin gas attack inGhouta, Syria upon the Assad government,when subsequent investigationshave revealed that it was the work ofsome militant rebel group.A False-Flag Operation?From Tonkin to Ghouta, there is a discernible patternwhen it comes to the fabrication of evidence to justifysome nefarious agenda or other. As soon as theevent occurs before any proper investigation has begun,blame is apportioned upon the targeted party. This isdone wilfully to divert attention from the real culprit,whose act of evil remains concealed and camouflaged.The colluding media then begins to spin the correct versionwith the help of its reporters and columnists whoconcoct “fact” out of fiction. Any other explanation orinterpretation of the event is discredited and dismissedderisively to ensure that the “credibility” of the dominantnarrative remains intact. As the narrative unfolds,the target, often embodied in a certain personality, isdemonized to such a degree that he arouses the ire of thepublic and becomes an object of venom.The pattern described here is typical of what isknown as a “false-flag” operation in which blame forsome dastardly deed is consciously transferred to one’sadversary. It has happened right through history, andmany contemporary nation-states—and not just theUnited States—are guilty of flying false flags.To protect ourselves from being deceived by suchoperations, the general public should always ask: Whomidas.mod.gov.myDr. Chandra MuzaffarAugust 1, 2014 EIR International 35stands to gain from a particular episode? Cui Bono is infact an important principle in the investigation of acrime. In the case of the MH 17 carnage, the pro-Russianrebels do not benefit in any way from downing acivilian airliner. Their goal is independence from theKiev government, which is why they are fighting Kievthrough sometimes violent means, including shootingdown its military planes. Massacring 298 passengers ina flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur does notserve their cause. Moscow, which backs the rebels to anextent, also gains nothing from involving itself in sucha diabolical carnage.The Demonization of PutinTen days after the carnage, it is now clear who istrying to reap benefits from that terrible tragedy in theskies. The demonization of the Russian President,Vladimir Putin, orchestrated from various Western capitals,including Kiev, after Crimea voted to join theRussian Federation, thus thwarting one of the primarystrategic goals of NATO’s eastward expansion, has nowreached its pinnacle. After MH 17, it has become a loteasier to convince people—even without an iota of evidence—that Putin is a “mass murderer.” The tarnishingof Putin’s image is crucial for those in the West whowant to curb Russia’s political re-assertion so that theU.S. and its allies can perpetuate their global dominancewithout hindrance.MH 17 has helped the elite in Washington in yet anothersense. It has strengthened its push for toughersanctions against Russia which began after the Crimeavote. Given their extensive economic ties with Russia,many European countries such as Germany, France,Netherlands, and Italy have been somewhat lukewarmabout widening and deepening sanctions. But will thatchange now? Will an outraged European public, incensedby the MH 17 massacre, demand that their governmentspunish Moscow?It is obvious that those who seek to punish Russiaand the pro-Russian rebels, namely, the elite in Washingtonand Kiev, are poised to gain the most from theMH 17 episode. Does it imply that they would have hada role in the episode itself? Only a truly independentand impartial international inquiry would be able toprovide the answer.In this regard, we must admit that while elites inKiev and Washington may stand to gain from MH 17,those who actually pulled the trigger may be some othergroup or individual with links to the powerful in the twocapitals. It is quite conceivable that a certain wellheeledindividual equipped with the appropriate militaryapparatus and with access to air-control authoritiesin the region may have executed the act of evil itself.Because of who he is, and where his loyalties lie, thatindividual may have also decided to target Malaysia.Was he giving vent to his anger over our principled standon the question of justice for the Palestinians? Was healso attempting to divert public attention from Israel’sground offensive against Gaza, which time-wise coincidedwith the downing of the Malaysian airliner?As we explore MH 17 from this angle, would we beable to connect the dots between MH 17 and MH 370,between July 17 and March 8, 2014?We should not rest till the whole truth is known andthe evil behind these two colossal catastrophes punishedseverely.We owe this to every soul who perished on thosefateful flights.This article is dedicated to the cherished memory ofall those on MH 17—especially the 80 children whowere on board.10YearsLaterAn LPAC-TVFeature FilmEight monthsbefore theSeptember 11,2001 attacks,Lyndon LaRoucheforecast that theUnited States wasat high risk fora Reichstag Fireevent, an event that would allow those in power to manage,through dictatorial means, an economic and social crisisthat they were otherwise incompetent to handle. We arepresently living in the wake of that history.http://larouchepac.com/10yearslater

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com